That is a very odd statement. Xeno is just a prefix derived from Greek that means other or stranger. It has no political, ethical, or moral content or significance.

Also, much less so: Guest, or one that will not be staying. ODD - Oppositional defiant disorder. It is relatively new and I do not take anything for it.

And 'ta politika' was the ancient Greek meaning "affairs of state" and later meaning also the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society. You are going to tell me that "only useful people need apply" has no political, ethical, or moral content or significance as well, I'll guess.

Everything they handed me had been marked "US." I found this bipolar simplicity intriguing.

_________________It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.Henry David Thoreau

This has been discussed here before with different motivating factors. Moving 300-700 miles north will only put you in direct confrontation with existing people who live there. If that's your plan, expect a lot of resistance to your presence. A much safer plan is to adjust your skill set to how the climate has changed in your area. Instead of winter wheat in KS/ Oklahoma , vineyards and orange orchards for example. It's not like everything south of the Dakotas is going to be uninhabitable.

In this case, a plan might be something like "immigrate now/soon before Canada becomes as xenophobic as much of the US".

As far as areas becoming uninhabitable, yes, some of that is expected to happen even under the most conservative predictions due to increases in wet bulb temperature and changes in precipitation. There are some areas in the southern US, as well as other places around the world at similar latitudes, that are expected to become uninhabitable due to the wet bulb rising (as a product of a moderate rise in temperature coupled with a moderate rise in humidity, both of which raise the wet bulb) to the point that it's fatal to be outside without air conditioning for more than a few minutes at a time.

You first I plan to stick around in my underground /air conditioned house and growing coffee beans and bananas, while hunting giant crocodiles and mega pythons in the Texas rain forest

You made it sound so good I almost went outside and lit a bunch of old tires on fire just to hurry things up.

Joking aside, regardless of whichever direction and severity that climate change does occur, victory will go to the adaptable more than to the migratory. My $0.02

This has been discussed here before with different motivating factors. Moving 300-700 miles north will only put you in direct confrontation with existing people who live there. If that's your plan, expect a lot of resistance to your presence. A much safer plan is to adjust your skill set to how the climate has changed in your area. Instead of winter wheat in KS/ Oklahoma , vineyards and orange orchards for example. It's not like everything south of the Dakotas is going to be uninhabitable.

In this case, a plan might be something like "immigrate now/soon before Canada becomes as xenophobic as much of the US".

As far as areas becoming uninhabitable, yes, some of that is expected to happen even under the most conservative predictions due to increases in wet bulb temperature and changes in precipitation. There are some areas in the southern US, as well as other places around the world at similar latitudes, that are expected to become uninhabitable due to the wet bulb rising (as a product of a moderate rise in temperature coupled with a moderate rise in humidity, both of which raise the wet bulb) to the point that it's fatal to be outside without air conditioning for more than a few minutes at a time.

You first I plan to stick around in my underground /air conditioned house and growing coffee beans and bananas, while hunting giant crocodiles and mega pythons in the Texas rain forest

You made it sound so good I almost went outside and lit a bunch of old tires on fire just to hurry things up.

Joking aside, regardless of whichever direction and severity that climate change does occur, victory will go to the adaptable more than to the migratory. My $0.02

Humans seem to echo this with nomadic gathering and hunting based on seasonal availability, a very ancient practice.

Were you leaning towards saying that adaption means staying in place? For instance as weather gets colder the humans would develop warmer habitats, clothing, etc. as opposed to migrating to warmer climates?

Humans seem to echo this with nomadic gathering and hunting based on seasonal availability, a very ancient practice.

Were you leaning towards saying that adaption means staying in place? For instance as weather gets colder the humans would develop warmer habitats, clothing, etc. as opposed to migrating to warmer climates?

Yea you know , when colder bigger beards for men and furry breasts for the ladies and if warmer climate ,bigger ears ,less hair , long tongues and a wicked cool tan for both You know adaptable

Adaptability happens on an evolutionary time scale. It's not a terrible problem if the climate heats 2-4C over a span of a thousand generations. Animals will evolve to adapt to that just fine. It's a much bigger problem when humans are causing that same change to happen in 1-2 generations.

Adaptability happens on an evolutionary time scale. It's not a terrible problem if the climate heats 2-4C over a span of a thousand generations. Animals will evolve to adapt to that just fine. It's a much bigger problem when humans are causing that same change to happen in 1-2 generations.

for posterity before the cold lock of doom

Quote:

n almost every case, and definitely including climate change, the scientists aren't the ones making news off the most extreme claims. The scientists do good work and say "Our prediction is X with an uncertainty of Y", meaning that the truth is somewhere between X-Y and X+Y. This is because, unlike basically every other field of human experience, admitting how wrong you might be and taking huge steps to minimize the amount of potential being wrong, is at the very core of science. Then some dumbass in a PR department sees the paper, doesn't understand it but realizes they make the most impact if they state X+Y as the "answer" rather than the most extreme case. Sometimes it's PR at the university, sometimes it's PR at the first paper/magazine to see the paper, but it's very, very rarely the scientists. In the case of AGW, the scientists are pretty worried about X (god knows the moderate/probable impacts are horrid enough) but the damned media is still harping on and on about X+Y.

I am confused as to how I amused you. I think you might have misunderstood my complaint about people focusing only on the extreme outcomes and then posting something about how it's still going to be bad. 2-4C within my lifetime (I'm younger than a lot of the guys here, only mid-30s) is a middle-of-the-road prediction based on likely future outputs of CO2. It's not one of the high-end, unlikely predictions. That middle-of-the-road prediction (the X in your 2nd quote of me, not the X+Y) is still more than enough to really upset things for humans, other animals, and plants in no small part due to the short time (in the evolutionary and geological sense of time) over which it will happen.

That people my age will have to plan and prep for a climate that behaves significantly differently from the one at the time we were born is as certain as the coast getting hit with another hurricane, California having another earthquake, the west having another fire, or the middle of the country having another tornado. Why, as a website devoted to dealing with disaster preparedness, is it somehow unthinkable to consider preparing for the most comprehensive disaster many of the members will ever face? There's a difference between national policy (which thank god ZS bans the discussion of!) and personal preparedness. This is a threat for which we should be discussing personal preparedness given the probability of the threat being realized and the severity of the impact rank it so much higher than many of the incredibly unlikely things taken seriously in the prepper community (I'm looking at you, EMP )

I am confused as to how I amused you. I think you might have misunderstood my complaint about people focusing only on the extreme outcomes and then posting something about how it's still going to be bad. 2-4C within my lifetime (I'm younger than a lot of the guys here, only mid-30s) is a middle-of-the-road prediction based on likely future outputs of CO2. It's not one of the high-end, unlikely predictions. That middle-of-the-road prediction (the X in your 2nd quote of me, not the X+Y) is still more than enough to really upset things for humans, other animals, and plants in no small part due to the short time (in the evolutionary and geological sense of time) over which it will happen.

That people my age will have to plan and prep for a climate that behaves significantly differently from the one at the time we were born is as certain as the coast getting hit with another hurricane, California having another earthquake, the west having another fire, or the middle of the country having another tornado. Why, as a website devoted to dealing with disaster preparedness, is it somehow unthinkable to consider preparing for the most comprehensive disaster many of the members will ever face? There's a difference between national policy (which thank god ZS bans the discussion of!) and personal preparedness. This is a threat for which we should be discussing personal preparedness given the probability of the threat being realized and the severity of the impact rank it so much higher than many of the incredibly unlikely things taken seriously in the prepper community (I'm looking at you, EMP )

They also don't allow the personal opinion of who ( or what in this instance, since there is a large difference of opinion ) is to blame. So in my case I was only mildly amused . But a humorous post is better than a heated personal remark on the intelligence or honesty of a VALUED fellow member. Bless your heart !

That is a very odd statement. Xeno is just a prefix derived from Greek that means other or stranger. It has no political, ethical, or moral content or significance.

Many words have simple origins. The word politics likewise has a simple origin and originates from the greek word politikos. ("of, for, or relating to citizens") but despite this fact it has become political in meaning and is proscribed here.

Calling regions xenophobic is political or flaming. Either way it is not permissible.

This thread has gotten way off topic so I am going to leave it locked. If you disagree feel free to PM me.